dungeonsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Tome Spellcasting Feats
Metamagic Feat? --moved from individual tome metamagic feat pages-- How is this a metamagic feat? In the organization in the SRD this would have gone into the general category, along with augment summoning and spell focus. I would call these "spellcasting" feats. -Cedges 19:41, May 30, 2010 (UTC) : The Tomes wanted to change the meaning of the word "metamagic feat" to mean "scaling feat that scales with your highest castable spell level" but never got around to writing metamagic feats. Tome metamagic feat and WotC metamagic feat thus mean different things, but only one of them has a standard format for feats written. --IGTN 19:56, May 30, 2010 (UTC) ::I never really though about this before, but I'm goin with Cedges. I don't want to deal with term confusion if I can avoid it and calling these metamagic seems to fall outside the standard tome feat naming conventions. The type of tome feat is basically the numerical quantity that it scales to: ie Skill scales with a Skill, Combat scales with your combat ability (BAB). Metamagic is not a numerical quantity in game. "Spellcasting" seems a more direct and intuitive link in the semantic chain than "metamagic". And it's not like we have a lot of them or anything, so there's not a lot of negative inertia going against us here. It requires us to write a rule so wizards can take them as bonus feats (or write in a special line), but that's not a big deal. - TarkisFlux 21:04, May 30, 2010 (UTC) :::We've been calling them metamagic feats for like the past 4 years though, and the only way you can even reach this page is through the Tome navigation pages. Surgo 21:16, May 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::I've been around for a lot of that time and know how long we've been doing it, but it's not like we have a lot of usable work to show for it here. That's what I meant by lack of negative inertia. The feats also show up in the list (which is presumably where Cedges found them since he added basically the same comment to each one), though they have the Tome suffix on their type there. I'm not going to argue vociferously for the change (because I don't care that much), I just think it makes more sense and better fits the rest of Tome scaling feat naming conventions. - TarkisFlux 21:23, May 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::Perhaps "Spellcasting" should be the name, then. Surgo 21:54, May 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::In my as-yet-unpublished work, I've been using the type Magical, and leaving Metamagic for WotC metamagics, a lot of which come free in specially marked boxes of magical feat. Either Magical or Spellcasting are acceptable type names to me. Another possibility is calling it Metamagic, since Tome looks like two feat types (obeying the rules of both); Metamagic can have its own rules. --IGTN 21:58, May 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::: I only added the comment to the ones listed in 3.5e Feats as "Metamagic" and left the ones listed as "Metamagic, Tome" alone, figuring they were differently enough named not to be confusing. Whatever you do with names, they should probably also be included here: Powerful Metamagic (3.5e Feat), Quick Metamagic (3.5e Feat) -Cedges 23:35, May 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Apologies Cedges. I saw those two in the list actually and thought they were the two that you commented on. Boo assumption. My previous statement that the feats had ",Tome" appended to them was false cause I fail at name recognition today :-/. ::::::::Anyway, I'm in favor of Spellcasting because that's what it actually scales with, but I'd take magical if it came down to it. If Surgo's not going to fight me on it and we don't have any strong objections, I'll change them over in a few days / bug Johnnya about what we're gonna do with his. - TarkisFlux 00:16, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::: I edited the two other feats that should be here to have category: tome and changed the description to be more inclusive. I changed template:Tome Metamagic Feat to list Tome as a type (like the others) and to set it as a type, which should take effect eventually. Now everything's on one page, figuratively and literally. It'll be easy to find it all if you change the name or it will be all in one place if you don't. -Cedges 21:37, June 5, 2010 (UTC)